Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
We're arguing semantics here. Iowa is talking about reading between the lines, not explicit racist statements. You're trying to argue is not explicitly racist mini one disagrees with you. You can be pedantic to show you're intellectually above the fray, but it's an irrelevant position to take here. It's neither morally superior to argue racist dogwhistle language isn't racist, but it's irrelevant to discussion here
|
It isn't semantics, it's using terms accurately and precisely, particularly when the stakes are high. If it's a big deal for someone to be racist - and it is - we shouldn't be calling things racist when they don't really fall within the boundaries of the term*. Otherwise the term loses meaning. "Racist" is just about the worst thing you can call someone for most people short of allegations of actual criminal behaviour. It's not irrelevant to be careful to talk precisely about concepts that matter.
(*I realize that there is a broader sense of the term racism that Rube endorses (which I think boils down to "any statement that might be perceived as racist by the group in question, or any policy having the potential to disproportionately affect one racial group", regardless of the intent of the speaker. I just disagree with him.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
What good is gained by waging this battle? Far more harm is done by suggesting that Drumpf's comments re Mexican immigrants were not technically racist, which while both technically true and technically false, belies What we all know it be about and it's purpose.
|
Being right about something, being accurate rather than just fudging it for the "greater good" of smearing someone you don't like anyway, is a good in itself. It's the antithesis of intellectual laziness. What harm does the truth cause? None, unless someone is too dumb to understand and process nuance.